TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality initiatives
T2 - Measuring and managing the procedural competency of radiologists
AU - Mendiratta-Lala, Mishal
AU - Eisenberg, Ronald L.
AU - Steele, Joseph R.
AU - Boiselle, Phillip M.
AU - Kruskal, Jonathan B.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2011/9
Y1 - 2011/9
N2 - Many regulatory and oversight groups require that the professional performance of radiologists be evaluated on an ongoing basis. Although the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists is routinely measured at most institutions by means of peer review processes, systems for evaluating procedural competency are not widely available. Consequently, technical skills are seldom, if ever, evaluated or managed. The key elements of a system for evaluating procedural competency include the following: (a) clear definition of all elements of a transparent evaluation process; (b) definition of standards for training and credentialing and options for maintenance of competency certification in interventional procedures; (c) collection and analysis of process and outcomes metrics; (d) multisource feedback on procedural, patient care, and safety skills; and (e) an effective, anonymous process for managing radiologists in whom deficiencies are identified. Although no ideal system for evaluating procedural competency currently exists, inclusion of these elements goes a long way toward facilitating the introduction of a simple process for providing appropriate feedback to procedural radiologists, acknowledging excellence, and identifying and managing deficiencies if they occur.
AB - Many regulatory and oversight groups require that the professional performance of radiologists be evaluated on an ongoing basis. Although the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists is routinely measured at most institutions by means of peer review processes, systems for evaluating procedural competency are not widely available. Consequently, technical skills are seldom, if ever, evaluated or managed. The key elements of a system for evaluating procedural competency include the following: (a) clear definition of all elements of a transparent evaluation process; (b) definition of standards for training and credentialing and options for maintenance of competency certification in interventional procedures; (c) collection and analysis of process and outcomes metrics; (d) multisource feedback on procedural, patient care, and safety skills; and (e) an effective, anonymous process for managing radiologists in whom deficiencies are identified. Although no ideal system for evaluating procedural competency currently exists, inclusion of these elements goes a long way toward facilitating the introduction of a simple process for providing appropriate feedback to procedural radiologists, acknowledging excellence, and identifying and managing deficiencies if they occur.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052882219&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052882219&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/rg.315105242
DO - 10.1148/rg.315105242
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21719719
AN - SCOPUS:80052882219
SN - 0271-5333
VL - 31
SP - 1477
EP - 1488
JO - Radiographics
JF - Radiographics
IS - 5
ER -